• FAILURE to table their audited accounts (an offence under the Act which carries a RM30,000 fine or five years’ jail);

• FAILURE to file their annual return reports (RM5,000 fine);

• FAILURE to hold an annual general meeting (RM5,000 fine); and

• FAILURE to display their company’s name (RM1,000 fine).

Meanwhile, a former bank executive lodged a police report yesterday against CTOS for selling information on her personal finances to her ex-husband.

In her report, Norhayati Abdullah, of Bukit Antarabangsa, Ampang, said she had been “oppressed” because CTOS had not only disclosed her financial details but also printed and sold the information to her ex-husband in July last year for RM25, Bernama reports.

“I only knew of the matter after my lawyer told me the document was now being used by my ex-husband’s syariah lawyer in the hearing of a claim against my husband,” the 48-year-old woman told reporters after lodging the report at the Jalan Tun Razak police station.

From the report article we see that the authorities have not been monitoring such a company’s (sentitive) activities. Wonder why?
Only when it was brought to light by a deputy minister in the PM’s Dept do we see some authorities begin to “act”.
To me CTOS has been collecting those information more for their advantange than for the financial and banking institutions good use. CTOS clearly stated in their Introduction statement of their website as follows:-

Information collated is not based on hearsay or speculation but upon some publication or advertisement or based upon searches normally deemed reliable.

CTOS information does not attempt to show the ‘current status’ of legal cases, searches, etc. it is solely meant as a source of ‘first’ or ‘lead’ information to aid decision making, it must be read intelligently and skillfully. The type, nature of information, date and times are thus crucial factors to consider, if users feel the case may have a significant impact on the matter under consideration they should conduct further probe on these ‘first’ information to find out more.

CTOS however does not rank, rate or give opinions as to the credit worthiness, integrity, character of the subject inquired. It merely provides information that are historical that credit grantors want in their bid to know more about their customers better, past track record, etc.

When you apply for loans, credit cards, hire purchase or leasing facilities, etc in Malaysia, the chances are the credit grantor will make an enquiry in the CTOS system for information leads.

…………………….

Ultimately, credit grantors will only assume risks that they find it comfortable and acceptable within the limits set by their organization. CTOS plays no part in defining these criteria or the factors considered by them.

You see from the above intro statement by CTOS they are not responsible for the information received but more as a “first” or “lead” information for those institutions seeking the relevant information for their potential customers or clients. I wonder what those financial & banking institutions have in mind when the seek such information when it is clearly stated that CTOS does not rate or show the current status of the parties listed in their database. However for most of the cases the banking & financial institution take for granted that those names appeaaring in CTOS datbase are those of bad paymasters even though some of them had long settled their debt with their loan providers.

Does this mean that CTOS is free from such obligation of providing the true picture of those being listed in their server? CTOs is making good business out of people’s misery said the deputy minister from the PM’s Dept and why not? CTOS is said to be selling if not giving the third parties such information through some business deal. What better way of doing such a good business at the expense of those in misery. All these have been going on without any authority being aware of it until somebody reported it to the deputy minister.

Don’t the directors of CTOS realise that such information are confidential and it is only common sense that the permission of those affected must be obtained before such information can be delivered, given and sold to those seeking it.
So it is only fair for those individuals, whose informnation have been given or sold by CTOS without prior permission, to sue CTOS for damage. What right has CTOS got to do such a shameful thing to provide to parties that would eventually cause defamation, image smearing and further misery to those listed in CTOS databse.

Ah Longs (loan sharks) have made full use of the dislocated door to advertise their services. This piece of electrical equipment has been “opened” and “exposed” for a long period of time.

And the irony thing about it all is that Bank Negara Malaysia, being a central bank and has control over the nation’s financial management, had a oversight of such activities by CTOS.